The true-change model with individual method effects: Reliability issues

British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology

Volumn 61, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 379-399

  Vautier, Stéphane ^a,d   Steyer, Rolf ^b   Boomsma, Anne ^c  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE TOULOUSE   (France)

^b FRIEDRICH SCHILLER UNIVERSITY JENA   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

^d Maison de la Recherche   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; PSYCHOLOGY; REPRODUCIBILITY; STATISTICS; VALIDATION STUDY;

HUMANS; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; PSYCHOLOGY; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 56649115823     PISSN: 00071102     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1348/000711007X206826     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297-334.
2. Cronbach, L. J., & Furby, L. (1970). How we should measure 'change' - or should we? Psychological Bulletin, 74, 68-80.
3. Eid, M. (2000). A multitrait-multimethod model with minimal assumptions. Psychometrika, 65, 241-261.
4. Eid, M., Lischetzke, T., Nussbeck, E. W., & Trierweiler, L. (2003). Separating trait effects from trait-specific method effects in multitrait-multimethod models: A multiple-indicator CT-C(M-1) model. Psychological Methods, 8, 38-60.
5. Eid, M., Lischetzke, T., & Nussbeck, F. W. (2006). Structural equation models for multitrait-multimethod data. In M. Eid & E. Diener (Eds.), Handbook of mulitmethod measurement in psychology (pp. 283-299). Washington, DC: APA.
6. Feldt, L. S., & Brennan, R. L. (1989). Reliability. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 105-146). New York: Macmillan.
7. Floyd, F. J., & Widaman, K. F. (1995). Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7, 286-299.
8. Hattie, J. (1985). Methodology review: Assessing unidimensionality of tests and items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 139-164.
9. Jöreskog, K. G. (1971). Statistical analysis of sets of congeneric tests. Psychometrika, 36, 109-133.
10. Kano, Y., & Azuma, Y. (2003). Use of SEM programs to precisely measure scale reliability. In H. Yanai, A. Okada, K. Shigemasu, Y Kano, & J. J. Meulman (Eds.), New developments in psychometrics (pp. 141-148). Tokyo: Springer.
11. Kline, P. (2000). Handbook of psychological testing (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
12. Komaroff, E. (1997). Effect of simultaneous violations of essential tau-equivalence and uncorrected error on coefficient alpha. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21, 337-348.
13. Li, H., Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1996). Reliability of measurement in psychology: From Spearman-Brown to maximal reliability. Psychological Methods, 1, 98-107.
14. Lord, F. M., & Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
15. MacCallum, R. C., Roznowski, M., & Necowitz, L. B. (1992). Model modifications in covariance structure analysis: The problem of capitalization on chance. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 490-504.
16. McArdle, J. J., & Aber, M. (1990). Patterns of change within latent variable equation models. In A. von Eye (Ed.), Statistical methods in longitudinal research: Vol. 1. Principles and structuring change (pp. 151-224). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
17. McArdle, J. J., & Anderson, E. (1990). Latent variable growth models for developmental data analysis. In J. E. Birren & K. W. Schaie (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of aging (Vol. 2, pp. 21-44). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
18. McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
19. Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons' responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50, 741-749.
20. Muthén, B. O. (1998-2004). Mplus technical appendices. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.
21. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2004). Mplus 3.11 [Computer program]. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.
22. Neyman, J. (1990). On the application of probability theory to agricultural experiments. Essay on principles. Section 9. Statistical Science, 5, 465-472 (Original work published 1923).
23. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
24. Pohl, S., & Steyer, R. (2005, July). Analyzing the effect of negatively formulated items. Paper presented at the 14th International Meeting of the Psychometric Society, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
25. Pohl, S., & Steyer, R. (2006, July). Modeling method effects as individual causal effects. Paper presented at the SMABS-EAM Conference, Budapest, Hungary.
26. Pohl, S., Steyer, R., & Kraus, K. (2008). Modelling method effects as individual causal effects. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, 171, 41-63.
27. Raykov, T. (1997a). Estimation of composite reliability for congeneric measures. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21, 173-184.
28. Raykov, T. (1997b). Scale reliability, Cronbach's coefficient alpha, and violations of essential tau-equivalence with fixed congeneric components. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 32, 329-353.
29. Raykov, T. (1998). A method for obtaining standard errors and confidence intervals of composite reliability for congeneric items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 22, 369-374.
30. Raykov, T. (1999). Are simple change scores obsolete? An approach to studying correlates and predictors of change. Applied Psychological Measurement, 23, 120-126.
31. Raykov, T. (2001a). Bias of coefficient α for fixed congeneric measures with correlated errors. Applied Psychological Measurement, 25, 69-76.
32. Raykov, T. (2001b). Estimation of congeneric scale reliability using covariance structure analysis with nonlinear constraints. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 54, 315-323.
33. Raykov, T. (2001c). On the use and utility of the reliability coefficient in social and behavioral sciences. Quality & Quantity, 35, 253-263.
34. Raykov, T., & Penev, S. (2005). Estimation of reliability for multiple-component measurement instruments in test-retest designs. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 58, 285-299.
35. Reuterberg, S. E., & Gustafsson, J. E. (1992). Confirmatory factor analysis and reliability: Testing measurement model assumptions. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 795-811.
36. Rubin, D. B. (1978). Bayesian inference for causal effects: The role of randomization. Annals of Statistics, 6, 34-58.
37. Scheier, I. H., Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. W. (1994). Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): A re-evaluation of the life orientation test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1063-1078.
38. Schimmack, U., & Reisenzein, R. (2002). Experiencing activation: Energetic arousal and tense arousal are not mixtures of valence and activation. Emotion, 2, 412-417.
39. Schwarz, N. (1996). Cognition and communication: Judgmental biases, research methods, and the logic of conversation. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
40. Spielberger, C. D., & Krasner, S. S. (1988). The assessment of state and trait anxiety. In R. Noyes, Jr., M. Roth, & G. D. Burrows (Eds.), Handbook of anxiety: Vol. 2. Classification, etiological factors and associated disturbances (pp. 31-51). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
41. Stanley, J. C. (1971). Reliability. In R. L. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational measurement (2nd ed., pp. 356-442). Washington, DC: National Council on Measurement in Education.
42. Steyer, R. (1989). Models of classical psychometric test theory as stochastic measurement models: Representation, uniqueness, meaningfulness, identifiability, and testability. Methodika, 3, 25-60.
43. Steyer, R. (2005). Analyzing individual and average causal effects. Methodology, 1, 39-54.
44. Steyer, R., Eid, M., & Schwenkmezger, P. (1997). Modeling true intraindividual change: True-change as a latent variable. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 2, 21-33.
45. Steyer, R., Ferring, D., & Schmitt, M. J. (1992). States and traits in psychological assessment. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 8, 79-98.
46. Steyer, R., Gabier, S., von Davier, A. A., Nachtigall, C., & Buhl, T. (2000). Causal regression models I: Individual and average causal effects. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 5, 39-71.
47. Steyer, R., & Schmitt, M. J. (1990a). The effects of aggregation across and within occasions on consistency, specificity, and reliability. Methodika, 4, 58-94.
48. Steyer, R., & Schmitt, M. J. (1990b). Latent state-trait models in attitude research. Quality & Quantity, 24, 427-445.
49. Steyer, R., Schmitt, M. J., & Eid, M. (1999). Latent state-trait theory and research in personality and individual differences. European Journal of Personality, 13, 389-408.
50. Thorndike, R. L. (1951). Reliability. In E. F. Lindqulst (Ed.), Educational measurement (pp. 560-620). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
51. Vautier, S. & Jmel, S. (2003). Transient error or specificity? An alternative to the staggered equivalent split-half procedure. Psychological Methods, 8, 225-238.
52. Weiss. D. J., & Davison, M. L. (1981). Test theory and methods. Annual Review of Psychology, 32. 629-658.
53. Williams, R. H., & Zimmerman, D. W (1996). Are simple gain scores obsolete? Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 59-69.
54. Zimmerman, D. W (1994). A note on interpretation of formulas for the reliability of differences. Journal of Educational Measurement, 31, 143-147.
55. Zimmerman, D. W., & Williams, R. H. (1982). Gain scores in research can be highly reliable. Journal of Educational Measurement, 19, 149-154.
56. Zimmerman, D. W., & Williams, R. H. (1997). A geometric interpretation of the validity and reliability of difference scores. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 50, 73-80.
57. Zimmerman, D. W., & Williams, R. H. (1998). Reliability of gain scores under realistic assumptions about properties of pre-test and post-test scores. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 51, 343-351.
58. Zumbo, B. D., & Rupp, A. A. (2004). Responsible modeling of measurement data for appropriate inferences: Important advances in reliability and validity theory. In D. Kaplan (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of quantitative methodology for the social sciences (pp. 73-92). Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage.